In Melbourne as elsewhere, the November 24 election produced a pattern of strong swings in outer suburbs and weak ones nearer the city, which cut across the partisan divide. The swing against veteran Liberal moderate Petro Georgiou in blue-ribbon Kooyong was just 0.05 per cent, while Peter Costello faced a similarly mild 1.7 per cent shift in neighbouring Higgins. This pattern carried over to the conservative dead zone of Melbourne, which swung only 1.1 per cent in Labor-versus-Liberal terms. However, the real story here was Greens candidate Adam Bandt’s success in edging out the Liberal candidate to take second place. The Greens’ primary vote was up 3.8 per cent to 22.8 per cent, 0.7 per cent behind the Liberals. This gap was bridged after distribution of minor party preferences, with Bandt leading the Liberal candidate 21,996 (25.1 per cent) to 21,405 (24.4 per cent) at the second last exclusion. Liberal preferences then took Bandt to within 4.7 per cent of victory, producing the first ever “Labor versus Greens” two-party result in a federal seat at a general election. This is the first time Melbourne has met the AEC’s definition of a marginal seat (6 per cent or less) since 1904.
Beyond the swing-resistant inner core of Melbourne, Kooyong and Higgins lay a band of seats separating it from the volatile outer suburbs. Batman followed the broader pattern of mild swings of around 4 per cent in inner suburban Northcote, and heavier ones of 6 per cent to 7 per cent at Preston and Reservoir further to the north. The Greens’ vote was up 3.2 per cent to 17.2 per cent, a potentially bridgeable 3.4 per cent behind the Liberals. Jagajaga, Chisholm and Menzies produced near identical swings of 4.6 per cent to 4.7 per cent, respectively staying safe for Labor’s Jenny Macklin and Anna Burke and the Liberals’ Kevin Andrews. On the bayside, Melbourne Ports produced a relatively gentle 3.4 per cent swing which was nonetheless the biggest movement in the electorate since 1993, while its safe Liberal neighbour Goldstein swung 4.0 per cent.
The two biggest swings were in the Melbourne area were in the outer suburban suburbs of Calwell in the north and Holt in the south-east. Calwell topped the table at 11.1 per cent, with swings topping 15 per cent at Craigieburn on the outermost urban fringe. The 10.1 per cent swing in Holt was most pronounced in the south, peaking with a mighty 17.5 per cent swing at the electorate’s largest booth of Narre Warren South. Swings in the north were in the range of 5 per cent to 9 per cent. In what might be regarded as the defining booth result of the election, a 10.96 per cent swing to Labor was recorded at Kath and Kim’s home of Fountain Gate.
Labor added some fat to a number of margins in traditionally safe south-eastern seats that were cut uncomfortably fine in 2004. After previous member Ann Corcoran suffered an unexpectedly close shave in 2004, newcomer Mark Dreyfus boosted the Labor margin from 1.5 per cent to 7.7 per cent in Isaacs, which produced heavier swings in the inland suburbs of Keysborough and Carrum Downs than along the coast. Immediately to the north, Simon Crean increased his margin from 7.4 per cent to 13.0 per cent in Hotham, with particularly strong swings recorded in Springvale. In Bruce the swing to Labor was an evenly distributed 4.8 per cent, increasing Alan Griffin’s margin to 8.3 per cent.
Liberal seats in the eastern suburbs mostly followed the trend of their Labor-held neighbours. Only in the case of Deakin was the swing enough for a seat to change hands, Labor winning the seat for only the second time since its creation in 1937. Their candidate Mike Symon picked up 5.7 per cent on the primary vote and 6.4 per cent on two-party preferred to prevail with a margin of 1.4 per cent, ending the 11-year parliamentary career of Liberal member Phil Barresi. Labor achieved an identical swing further afield in McEwen, which was famously 12 votes short of what was needed to unseat Fran Bailey. The swing peaked at South Morang (10.6 per cent) and Wallan Wallan (9.1 per cent), but there was no clearly discernible pattern to its distribution. Labor’s other disappointment was a 5.3 per cent swing in La Trobe that fell 0.5 per cent short of delivering them the seat. The Dandenong Ranges formed a rough dividing line between suburbs on the city side where the swing was in the order of what Labor required, and the hill suburbs and surrounding small towns where it fell just short at around 4 per cent.
On safer ground for the Liberals, Bruce Billson’s seat of Dunkley returned to the marginal zone with a swing of 4.2 per cent that was felt more heavily in Frankston than Mornington and Mount Eliza. In outer suburban and semi-rural Casey, Tony Smith suffered a 5.4 per cent swing that was higher in suburban Croydon and Kilsyth than in the satellite towns of Monbulk and Woori Yallock. It is interesting to note a particularly sharp 8.1 per cent swing in Aston, which memorably gave the Liberals a bigger margin in 2004 than Kooyong. Any thoughts that this might have marked a long-term realignment can now be laid to rest, as the respective margins are now 5.0 per cent and 9.5 per cent.
Labor’s safe seats in the west and north of Melbourne produced remarkably consistent swings of between 5.5 per cent to 6.7 per cent, excepting the aforementioned Calwell. Wills followed the pattern of neighbouring Batman in producing smaller swings of around 4 per cent at Brunswick at the southern end nearer the city, increasing to around 7 per cent at Glenroy in the north. Bill Shorten’s candidacy appeared not to make much difference one way or the other in Maribyrnong, which swung to Labor by a locally typical 5.8 per cent which was evenly distributed through the electorate. There was similarly consistency in the swings in Gellibrand (6.5 per cent), Gorton (6.3 per cent) and Lalor (6.7 per cent).
739 Comments
Pages: « 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 … 15 » Show All
Jen-I understand he is a bit of a late bloomer in his Christian faith. His father was a Muslim and the religious right are a bit wary his faith is just political expediency. I doubt we will ever know the truth.
jv- I am reminded of the Gallup poll in the US asking whether they would vote for a candidate who was otherwise well-qualified if the candidate was
1. a woman (95% would)
2. Roman Catholic (94% would)
3. Jewi#h (92% would)
4. black (92% would)
5. Mormon (79% would, incidentally not a good sign for Romney)
6. homosexu#l (79% would)
7. atheist (49% would)
They really hate us over there!!
Diogenes -
it is your poll that makes me wonder: if you only had a 49% chance of winning then you’d be praising the lord and speaking in tongues if need be (with fingers crossed behind your back).
Jen – I’d say: atheist = no chance of winning any elected office. I doubt if a non-believer would even be allowed to win the lucky door prize at a dance over there.
Jen- I agree completely. I’m sure Kirribilli Removals has better info on this than me. You could argue that a true Dawkinsian atheist should commit political suicide and say he was an atheist.
BTW a bit of trivia, the novel I’m reading (Turkish Gambit by Akunin) says that Wyoming, which just had its primary, was the first place in the world to give women the vote and from a quick look on the internet it seems to be true.
The other half of Obama.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080106/news_mz1e6caldwel.html
Jen, are you suggesting Obama is a hypocrite?
Diogenes, what is a ‘Dawkinsian’ atheist? (I know who Dawkins is. I have always just considered myself as an atheist. I didn’t know there are sects.)
Steve@553. The San Diego Tribune may not be a Murdoch paper, but it is at least as conservative. There is little doubt they will support a Republican and it is unsurprising that they are sounding the warning bells re Obama. Having said that, Obama’s great weakness is going to be his lack of experience. Expect to hear that theme loudly trumpeted by his Dem and Rep opponents for the next few months. He is an impressive character, though, and one I believe the world needs right now if lasting change is to be achieved.
I am still uncertain about how the nomination process will play out, but I’m encouraged by the trend for Obama who seems a very impressive candidate. I’m slightly persuaded by John Ryan’s thinking that there will be real resistance to the notion of black President, yet there does seem something in the air this year. That drives my other fear that the previous Presidential campaign in which there was a palpable sense of change was 1968 (alluded to by Megan). I’m not expecting any candidate to be murdered, but I am reminded that the eventual contest then was between Hubert Humphrey (a politician with a fine record, but utterly discredited by his association with the failed policy in Vietnam) and Richard Nixon. We can only hope that this election does not conform to that precedent.
May I recommend Obama’s “The Audacity if Hope”, which sets out his views on a range of issues. He writes impressively and persuasively, if a little platitudinously. The suggestion about the book was particularly prompted by the questions/concerns expressed on this thread about his religious views. He describes growing up in a largely secular household. He formalised his Christian faith as an adult, and saw it deriving from his social service/ charitable activity. His arguments in his chapter “Faith” seem close to those of Rudd – that political progressives should not leave the field open to religious conservatives. He is pro-choice and for civil unions though opposed to gay marriage. In rejecting a literal application of Biblical teaching, he says ” As a general rule, I am more prone to listen to those who are as outraged by the indecency of homelessness as they are by the indecency of music videos.”
The audacity of Hope is a remarkably frank book from some-one embarking on a Presidential campaign
556 Artie B- The term “Dawkinsian” atheist has several connotations. They (we) view religion not just as a misguided harmless or even beneficial social phenomenon but as “the root of all evil” or something close to that. Rather than being bemused by religious beliefs and not commenting on them, Dawkinsians would actively try to argue against religious belief. They value science very highly and rational thought above all. They can be described as “neo-Darwinian” and believe evolution is progressive (as opposed to Gouldians who believe it is not).
GG
India c Benson b Bucknor
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8n6GI54y00
with apologies to Indian Express; will Kev or Julia be on the box tonight?
Speaking of the Nixon era:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/04/AR2008010404308.html
Here is a whole lot of poll material to digest for the US election, presented with an easy to understand map. Just roll over the state for the latest polls.
http://www.electoral-vote.com
Artie B-
I am suggesting that aa a politician he would also be a pragmatist. (I accept he is not the Messiah).
I think we can safely predict that Edwards, who is from the South, will be Obama’s running mate if he wins.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23015320-601,00.html
Aha, true leadership…let’s just see what comes to pass.
I believe that progression has been hampered by the division created by the political process.
For progress to be accelerated for the future needs, all parties must sit at the table and reach a consensus.
Oh well…
556 & 559 Diogenes and Artie
Yes, and rather than ‘moderate’ religion being benign, it is seen by many atheists as being the medium from which extremism grows. All the slightly more zealous have to do is just read the book (Bible or Koran) and take up on the clear and absolute intolerance towards those of another faith. If it wasn’t for the moderates, who tend to pretend the exhortations to kill in the books don’t exist, there would be less of a springboard for the extremists, who are just being ‘holier than thou’. The moderates tut-tut and distance themselves from violent acts, all the while being the unwitting generators of the nutters.
For all you American-philes who give a damm
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/01/the_iowa_curse.html
For those interested in the power of religion in US politics – Just came across a timely example from today’s SMH as to the extent of the influence of christian religion in popular culture in the US – and in this case the world. This is the sort of power Obama and co are up against before they start. This is quite frightening … shudder …
“Christian critic sways studios”
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/christian-critic-sways-studios/2008/01/06/1199554485388.html
Perhaps Americans just don’t know what the word “atheist” means?
Jen, PLEASE remember that the Messiah only votes Republican and ofcourse Family First!!!!!
JV and Diogenes -
I just gave The God Delusion to a cousin of mine who has recently left the monastry, thinking that the best way to deal witha crisis of faith is not to have any.
I’ll let you know his views, as he is totally disillusioned with the CatholicChurch but still of the opinion that religion as a’ benign force’ is a source of good.
JV if Obama is a Christian then whats the problem with that bloke in the article?
Is he a right wing nut?
Thank you Brenton,
I stand corrected.
Reminds me of the woman handing out Family First how-to-vote cards at my polling booth who claimed that God had placed a message in her heart that guided her to the polling booth. Beats GPS!
McCain and Obama will win NH, Huckleberry will get SC and Rudy will pick up Florida which will make Feb 5 interesting.
Might i also point out that Obama is not an ‘African American’ his father was from Kenya, that is why some have said Obama will struggle with the African American voters who may still back Hillary…
I still expect Rudy Giuliani to have more delegates after Feb 5 by a large margin being the only moderate Republican he’ll do well in the Big States like California, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New York.
Scotty Romney only won Wyoming because nobody else could be bothered to waste their money on a handful delegates, that’s why Rudy is holding back his millions of campaign dollars for the Big States which are more moderate and have more delegates.
sean-
that’s fantastic. I’m going to ditch my Melways for the Bible.
Yes, but she didn’t understand what compulsory voting was and had never heard of WorkChoices (even though she was handing out how-to-vote cards). So, I think God may have extracted her brain in the process.
Note to self. Give up on irony.
Glen: That’s a fair assessment of the goings on in the US.
Who are you backing for the White House?
sean-
the sad reality that the man that represents such unthinking ignorance perpetuated by the evangelical churches – Stephen Fielding – almost holds the balance of power in the Australian Senate.
Artie -
i got it.
It will be interesting to see how that plays out considering the Age today reported that Nick Minchin had meetings with Nick Xenephon just recently to discuss matters.
Aussieguru @ 572 – Looks like he is. Here’s your answer from the article:
What appears to be right-wing nuttery from here though probably doesn’t look like it to those who live there within the American political scene.
I always assume that the more intelligent a person seems, the less likely they are to embrace superstition. So I’d like to think with Obama that he has done the minimum christian distance to qualify, and lurking beneath the religious claptrap he must utter is a rational thinker on all issues. We’ll see.
Jen – Give your journeyman relation Sam Harris’ book ‘The End of Faith” too, if he can take it, on top of Dawkins.
The “root of all evil” Diogenes is, in its original context, greed (or specifically ‘the love of money’). It’s ironic that Jesus’ words should be used to condemn religion. Somehow I think he would enjoy the irony. Equally dangerous to greed however, is intolerance. For atheists or anyone else to encourage intolerance towards those who practice even a moderate faith is as potentially evil as the fundamentalists’ blind hatred of any who differ from them. Our democracy has always insisted that freedom of religion is as essential to liberty as is freedom of speech, thought or political persuasion. These are freedoms we should guard with every fibre of our being. Regulars here will know that I have a background as an ordained minister. My journey out of religion was driven by personal convictions and observations and came at considerable personal cost. I probably have more reason to distrust religion than most and have battled fundamentalists at close quarters for decades. While these days I may happily engage in theological debate with ‘believers’ of any stripe, I remain committed to their right to practice their faith without fear of persecution holding firmly to the view that tolerance is a mark of a mature democracy.
Well im backing Giuliani i he’s a moderate Republican when it comes to social issues like gun control, abortion which i support him on and he’s more inline with my opinions of the ‘war on terror’ so im backing Rudy.
I still can’t say who can win the nomination on both sides, personally i dont think Huckleberry can do well in some of the Big States i mentioned purely because he has next to no cash on hand and neither can i see Republican Party whose strongest base the CC’s will ever back a Morman for President so that’s Romney out therefore essentially it will come down to Rudy, McCain and Huckleberry.
It’s going to be tight between Hillary and Obama IMHO Asanque purely because Clinton has a better operational structure and infrastructure more so than Obama’s and that will count more in the bigger States. But i suspect Obama to carry NC and SC but Hillary is happy playing the same game as Giuliani sit tight weather the storm and wait till the bigger Primaries and swamp your opponent by winning vast numbers of delegates by taking the Big States.
Giuliani was helped immeasurable by Romney losing Iowa, Romney was always Giuliani’s biggest competitor and if he doesnt take NH he’s all but done IMHO. It will also hurt McCain with him refusing to commit to more than 1 term due to his age and that will count IMHO.
Giuliani and Clinton are playing a risky game essentially waiting for Feb 5 but it could well pay off for both in the end, plus because of the way the Democratic Nomination is organized Hillary has the support of all but 1 US HoR Member in New York thats 39 votes to 1 already in her favour.
I liked Biden for the Democrats if i had to pick one but he’s gone, but if the Republicans don’t nominate Rudy Giuliani they have about as much chance of winning as John Howard does of becoming Prime Minister again in 2010, bugger all!
Ferny Grover, sorry, dont bore us here with the poor old suffering of those of a religious nature! I belong to one of the most abused and discriminated groups ever in the history of mankind. Please allow me the right to despise, people who indulge in the worship of thin air and all it’s devastating consequences to millions of innocent victims!
Hi Ferny – no need to get personally affronted. You are clearly harmless
The context is the US and the extent to which religion and politics are intertwined, with the result that ludicrous morality and beliefs such as the creation is shoved down everyone else’s metaphorical throat, nationally and in many states. That is hardly moderate. And the other point is how every national candidate has to drip with that stuff to have a chance of election.
Brenton, I doubt that ‘despising’ will help anyone and is, indeed, at the heart of the problem.
Ferny- I think there is a big difference between atheists views towards religion and their views towards religious people. I know, love and respect many religious people, I even married one! But religion as an idea can be challenged rationally without there being any intolerance. I’m more than happy for people to believe in a God or whatever takes their fancy and I certainly don’t believe that religion is the root of all evil (I actually don’t think even Dawkins does). Philosophically, I don’t actually believe in “evil”.
I do not know enough about the US prsidential hopefuls to make a detailed assessment. Of the Republicans, John McCain seems to have integrity, while the others seem to change according to when and to whom they are speaking. Barack Obama may be all that he is hoped to be by posters here, but he seems full of Amway rhetoric to me. I haven’t got a clue what actual policies he would implement for the USA. This may be a result of the US presidential system, under which different parties can control the Comgress and the presidency or, when the same party controls both Congress and the presidency, the party system is so loose that the president cannnot get his program legislated; e.g., Bill Clinton and health insurance. The Liberals said Kevin ‘07 had no policies, but they were very detailed for anyone who looked. I do not see the equivalent in the US.
Sorry Ferny Grover, religious people DENY other groups of people their rights! That is where the ‘despise” comes in! And dont lecture me at all about ‘despising’ , just look at the history of the Christian Church??????????????????? NOt a pretty picture at all !!!!!!!!
Hi JV – I’m not personally affronted – far from it. I enjoy the (usually) well considered views on this forum. I could point out a few fundamentalists who would definitely NOT see me as harmless
. The US is a strange place and its odd mix of religion and politics (or religion and pop music, sport and anything else) is bizarre to most of us in Oz. I know from personal experience the power of the conservative christian forces in America. They carry a lot of votes and no politician has yet taken them on and survived.
Glen at 585: Good post.
Sums it up quite well from both sides.
Who do you prefer out of the remaining candidates? Edwards, Obama or Clinton?
Out of the republicans, I probably prefer McCain over Giuliani, but have queries about his age.
I can’t see Huckerbee or Romney being viable for the Repubs.
I see the Republican race as too close to call until later this year.
Although I can’t see any of the Repubs coming close to the Democrats.
Obama will take NH, and is now favourite to take the Democratic candidacy.
Edwards is no shot, and will likely play kingmaker/queenmaker. I suspect he will choose Obama and become VP.
I’m not counting out Clinton who still has a remarkable 20 point lead over Obama, yet is behind in the betting markets.
I prefer Obama because of his stance on the ‘war of terror’.
I still can’t reconcile US foreign policy to be anything but a miserable failure in the last 8 years.
590
Chris Curtis – that’s why Presidential candidates have ‘policy positions’ lol!
Tabitha moment for the Catholic church:
Liberal boys go to heaven, kneeling and praying eveyday.
Labor boys go to hell, chasing all the hot girls away.
Anyway, if Obama can keep rising above the slung mud such as the article Steve linked above and lead through the primaries, the election processes will be infinitely more engaging for the next 11 months than if its Hillary vs McCain or any of the others. And it will breathe more life into this blog too.
593
Asanque – out of the three as you can imagine neither is rather appealing to a tory but i hate myself for saying it but id probably back Clinton over Obama and based purely on experience.
Clearly Obama will have the ‘Mo’ going into Feb 5 after victories in NH and SC in my belief but with the Republican field so divided Feb 5 will sort the men from the boys i suspect Romney, Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter as well as Ron Paul to drop out soon after Feb 5 leaving it to Giuliani, McCain and Huckleberry aka ‘Jesus Loves Me’.
I must admit i like McCain too his experience, his leadership in the Senate, him not being beholden to the CC’s who dominate large portions of the Republican Party and his moderate political positions. My only ? is his age perhaps as a VP to Giuliani would be far better than Huckles even though if Giuliani manages to pull it off in the end he’s going to have to ask Huckles probably before McCain. I think the national security is about the only thing that can unite Republicans thus Rudy is my pick though he is no shoe in i wonder what the betting markets have to say.
I suspect you are correct he needs someone from the South he needs a Johnson like Kennedy needed to hold fray down there but i think Edwards is more of a radical than Obama infact Edwards makes Obama look great in comparison. Obama could go for Biden since Biden ruled out being VP under Hillary. But the trouble is Obama will want Edward’s delegates and he’ll have a few by the end of it.
I really hope McCain wins NH because Romney is only in it because of his personal fortune and he’s a Morman and he’s pandered to the Christian Right and recanted all his moderate political positions.
I must say the US is in deep brown stuff with regards to their Health System i mean say what you will about trashing Whitlam for his economic management but Medicare really does help out paying the bills.
Glen: Mccain is slight favourite over Giuliani.
And just ahead of Arnie on 1000-1
Glen: What do you think of Rudd’s performance so far as PM?
Has his lack of experience hurt him?
Have union officals taken over yet?
All I know is that the global economy is crashing and it must be the ALP’s fault.
Just kidding
Switched on Fox News during a late lunch today. Caught the debate between the Republican candidates. From left to right you had Giuliani, Thomson, Huckabee, Romney and McCain.
What a pack of deadbeats.
Pages: « 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 … 15 » Show All